Analyze the landmark judicial pronouncements on the amendability of Fundamental Rights: In which case did the Supreme Court rule that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights in Part III because they form a transcendental and immutable position, thereby overruling its earlier view in the Shankari Prasad case?

💡 Solution & Explanation

In the Golaknath case of 1967, the Supreme Court held that Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights, reversing previous rulings. The later Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 superseded Golaknath by upholding Parliament amendment power subject to the basic structure doctrine. Other options deal with directive principles or educational reservations. Article 13 defines law to include constitutional amendments in that specific historical context.